All Posts (6434)
Sort by
Big Island News: Massive Ka'u project being proposed around Pohue Bay Area
Malama pono,
With the Ka’u community already devoting its time and energy on its Community Development Plan, a developer is trying to weasel in a massive 16,000 acre development between Mamalahoa Hay and Pohue Bay just south of Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. This area is larger than H.O.V.E. and over ten times the size of Hokuli’a.
You can read a complete description of the project via its Environmental Impact Statement Public Notice *EISPN” here.
The proposed project would wipe out a pristine open area with:
* Three coastal resort hotel complexes with up to 950 units
* Two 18-hole nearshore golf courses
* 850 golf resort homes
* An airport
* 70 airport lots
* Up to 1,050 residential lots clustered around a commercial Village Core just south of the current Ocean View Village Center.
* 170 20-acre agricultural lots
Please take the time write a short letter of opposition to this illegal development. This letter will ensure that your comments must be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The public comment period for the Environmental Impact Statement Public Notice ends on Friday, October 2, 2009.
Your comments must be sent to each of the following three addresses:
Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Planning Director
County of Hawai’i
Planning Department
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Ste 3
Hilo HI 96720
PBR HAWAII
Contact: Mr. Vincent Shigekuni, Vice President
PBR HAWAII
1001 Bishop Street
ASB Tower, Ste 650
Honolulu HI 96813
Nani Kahuku ‘Aina LLC
Mr. Valentine Peroff, President
Ms. Katherine Peroff, Vice President
99-0880 Iwaena Street
Aiea HI 96701
Background information
Over 50% of the Nani Kahuku ‘Aina project is in the state Conservation Land Use District for good reason.
The proposed project area is a critical habitat area for at least three endangered species, the hala pepe plant, the Hoary Bat, and the Hawksbill Turtle.
In 2006, the Hawai’i Supreme Court in Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners (2006) ruled that both the state and the county of Hawai’i have an affirmative duty to protect nearshore marine water quality. At the same time, the University of Hawai’i-Hilo Marine Sciences Department issued a report which concluded that West Hawai’i’s nearshore marine waters were on the verge of an “environmental disaster” due to deteriorating water quality.
The nearshore waters are currently rated Class AA pristine, “not influenced by humans”. Meanwhile, Class AA marine waters around coastal development in Kona and Kohala are now being be classified by the EPA as “impaired” and the stage has been set for a legal case arguing that nearshore development is an illegal taking of public rights and the public trust.
Needless to say, Nani Kahuku ‘Aina also contains numerous cultural sites. This project is being proposed at a time when the Hawai’i State Historic Preservation Division has openly admitted that it is “broken” and is under investigation by the U.S. National Park Service. More importantly, the developer and their consultant, PBR Hawai’i, have already revealed their lack of consideration for the Native Hawaiian people and their culture by not disclosing in the EISPN that Nani Kahuku ‘Aina must go through the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process.
Hawai‘i State Constitution, Article XI, Section 1 states that everyone must, "conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources...All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people."
The Hawai`i Supreme Court in Wai‘ola o Moloka‘i, 103 Haw. 401, 439, 83 P.3d 664, 702 (2004) acknowledged the need for preserving Hawai`i’s natural ecosystems in parallel with preserving Hawaiians’ cultural link to those ecosystems by "(1) maintaining native Hawaiians' religious and spiritual relationship to the land and nearshore environment and (2) perpetuating their commitment to 'malama ka aina,' which mandates the protection of their natural ecosystems from desecration and deprivation of their natural freshwater resources.” The court found the State inadequately conditioned permitted uses of natural resources that are integral to native Hawaiian customary and traditional rights.
Therefore, Nani Kahuku ‘Aina proposes to cause irreparable harm to constitutionally-protected public trust resources. This is why the community was successful in preventing a previously proposed resort for this property.
With thousands of unbuilt lots in H.O.V.E and an already approved Village commercial center on Mamalahoa Hwy, this development would create an insurmountable public infrastructure deficit in Ka’u. It is a self-serving proposal being made by a few individuals without regard to the Ka’u community, existing laws and rules, or the Ka’u Community Development Plan process.
Additional notes:
PBR Hawai’i prepared the Environmental Impact Statements for the Hokuli’a and the Keopuka Lands projects. Both EIS documents were accepted by government agencies despite numerous serious errors. For instance, court rulings later found both projects to be illegal uses of agricultural land and that a Clean Water Act permit had been violated.
Nani Kahuku ‘Aina LLC has received federal funding from the U.S. Department of the Interior. The EISPN is already flawed because does not acknowledge that Nani Kahuku ‘Aina is subject to the National Historic Preservation Act and the Section 106 process.
West Hawai’i Today published a story about this project this past February: http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2009/02/22/local/local03.txt
With the Ka’u community already devoting its time and energy on its Community Development Plan, a developer is trying to weasel in a massive 16,000 acre development between Mamalahoa Hay and Pohue Bay just south of Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. This area is larger than H.O.V.E. and over ten times the size of Hokuli’a.
You can read a complete description of the project via its Environmental Impact Statement Public Notice *EISPN” here.
The proposed project would wipe out a pristine open area with:
* Three coastal resort hotel complexes with up to 950 units
* Two 18-hole nearshore golf courses
* 850 golf resort homes
* An airport
* 70 airport lots
* Up to 1,050 residential lots clustered around a commercial Village Core just south of the current Ocean View Village Center.
* 170 20-acre agricultural lots
Please take the time write a short letter of opposition to this illegal development. This letter will ensure that your comments must be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The public comment period for the Environmental Impact Statement Public Notice ends on Friday, October 2, 2009.
Your comments must be sent to each of the following three addresses:
Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Planning Director
County of Hawai’i
Planning Department
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi Street, Ste 3
Hilo HI 96720
PBR HAWAII
Contact: Mr. Vincent Shigekuni, Vice President
PBR HAWAII
1001 Bishop Street
ASB Tower, Ste 650
Honolulu HI 96813
Nani Kahuku ‘Aina LLC
Mr. Valentine Peroff, President
Ms. Katherine Peroff, Vice President
99-0880 Iwaena Street
Aiea HI 96701
Background information
Over 50% of the Nani Kahuku ‘Aina project is in the state Conservation Land Use District for good reason.
The proposed project area is a critical habitat area for at least three endangered species, the hala pepe plant, the Hoary Bat, and the Hawksbill Turtle.
In 2006, the Hawai’i Supreme Court in Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners (2006) ruled that both the state and the county of Hawai’i have an affirmative duty to protect nearshore marine water quality. At the same time, the University of Hawai’i-Hilo Marine Sciences Department issued a report which concluded that West Hawai’i’s nearshore marine waters were on the verge of an “environmental disaster” due to deteriorating water quality.
The nearshore waters are currently rated Class AA pristine, “not influenced by humans”. Meanwhile, Class AA marine waters around coastal development in Kona and Kohala are now being be classified by the EPA as “impaired” and the stage has been set for a legal case arguing that nearshore development is an illegal taking of public rights and the public trust.
Needless to say, Nani Kahuku ‘Aina also contains numerous cultural sites. This project is being proposed at a time when the Hawai’i State Historic Preservation Division has openly admitted that it is “broken” and is under investigation by the U.S. National Park Service. More importantly, the developer and their consultant, PBR Hawai’i, have already revealed their lack of consideration for the Native Hawaiian people and their culture by not disclosing in the EISPN that Nani Kahuku ‘Aina must go through the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process.
Hawai‘i State Constitution, Article XI, Section 1 states that everyone must, "conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources...All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people."
The Hawai`i Supreme Court in Wai‘ola o Moloka‘i, 103 Haw. 401, 439, 83 P.3d 664, 702 (2004) acknowledged the need for preserving Hawai`i’s natural ecosystems in parallel with preserving Hawaiians’ cultural link to those ecosystems by "(1) maintaining native Hawaiians' religious and spiritual relationship to the land and nearshore environment and (2) perpetuating their commitment to 'malama ka aina,' which mandates the protection of their natural ecosystems from desecration and deprivation of their natural freshwater resources.” The court found the State inadequately conditioned permitted uses of natural resources that are integral to native Hawaiian customary and traditional rights.
Therefore, Nani Kahuku ‘Aina proposes to cause irreparable harm to constitutionally-protected public trust resources. This is why the community was successful in preventing a previously proposed resort for this property.
With thousands of unbuilt lots in H.O.V.E and an already approved Village commercial center on Mamalahoa Hwy, this development would create an insurmountable public infrastructure deficit in Ka’u. It is a self-serving proposal being made by a few individuals without regard to the Ka’u community, existing laws and rules, or the Ka’u Community Development Plan process.
Additional notes:
PBR Hawai’i prepared the Environmental Impact Statements for the Hokuli’a and the Keopuka Lands projects. Both EIS documents were accepted by government agencies despite numerous serious errors. For instance, court rulings later found both projects to be illegal uses of agricultural land and that a Clean Water Act permit had been violated.
Nani Kahuku ‘Aina LLC has received federal funding from the U.S. Department of the Interior. The EISPN is already flawed because does not acknowledge that Nani Kahuku ‘Aina is subject to the National Historic Preservation Act and the Section 106 process.
West Hawai’i Today published a story about this project this past February: http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2009/02/22/local/local03.txt
Call the White House Comment Line, Too: 202-456-1111 / 202-456-1112.Mr. President, Free Peltier NOW!
Leonard PeltierAn innocent man, Leonard Peltier was wrongfully convicted in 1977 and has served over 30 years in federal prison despite proof of his innocence—also despite proof that he was convicted on the basis of fabricated and suppressed evidence, as well as coerced testimony.The United States Courts of Appeal have repeatedly acknowledged investigative and prosecutorial misconduct in this case but, by their decisions, have refused to take corrective action. A model prisoner, Leonard also has been denied fair consideration for parole and Executive Clemency. This is clearly an abuse of the legal standards of American justice.Learn more about the Peltier case. Watch "Incident at Oglala," A 1988 Documentary Produced & Narrated by Robert Redford.
(Approximate Runtime: 90 Minutes)Visit SIGN THE CLEMENCY PETITION!
Taliban insurgents = FREEDOM FIGHTERS = CIVILIANS FIGHTING FOR THEIR FREEDOM FROM THE REAL TERRORIST = USA and CORPORATE GREEDSole informant in Afghan strike decisionNATO fact-finding team estimates about 125 people were killedBy Rajiv ChandrasekaranThe Washington Postupdated 6:39 p.m. HT, Sat., Sept . 5, 2009HAJI SAKHI DEDBY, Afghanistan - To the German commander, it seemed to be a fortuitous target: More than 100 Taliban insurgents were gathering around two hijacked fuel tankers that had become stuck in the mud near this small farming village.The grainy live video transmitted from an American F-15E fighter jet circling overhead, which was projected on a screen in a German tactical operations center four miles north of here, showed numerous black dots around the trucks — each of them a thermal image of a human but without enough detail to confirm whether they were carrying weapons. An Afghan informant was on the phone with an intelligence officer at the center, however, insisting that everybody at the site was an insurgent, according to an account that German officers here provided to NATO officials.Based largely on that informant's assessment, the commander ordered a 500-pound, satellite-guided bomb to be dropped on each truck early Friday. The vehicles exploded in a fireball that lit up the night sky for miles, incinerating many of those standing nearby.A NATO fact-finding team estimated Saturday that about 125 people were killed in the bombing, at least two dozen of whom — but perhaps many more — were not insurgents. To the team, which is trying to sort out this complicated incident, mindful that the fallout could further sap public support in Afghanistan for NATO's security mission here, the target appeared to be far less clear-cut than it had to the Germans.One survivor, convalescing from abdominal wounds at a hospital in the nearby city of Kunduz, said he went to the site because he thought he could get free fuel. Another patient, a 10-year-old boy with shrapnel in his left leg, said he went to gawk, against his father's advice. In Kabul, the Afghan capital, relatives of two severely burned survivors being treated at an intensive-care unit said Taliban fighters forced dozens of villagers to assist in moving the bogged-down tankers."They came to everyone's house asking for help," said Mirajuddin, a shopkeeper who lost six of his cousins in the bombing — none of whom, he said, was an insurgent. "They started beating people and pointing guns. They said, 'Bring your tractors and help us.' What could we do?"None of the survivors and the relatives dispute that some Taliban fighters were at the scene. But just how many remains unclear, as does the number of civilians. And because many of the bodies were burned beyond recognition, and others were buried in the hours after the explosion, it may be impossible to ascertain.The decision to bomb the tankers based largely on a single human intelligence source appears to violate the spirit of a tactical directive aimed at reducing civilian casualties that was recently issued by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the new commander of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The directive states that NATO forces cannot bomb residential buildings based on a sole source of information and that troops must establish a "pattern of life" to ensure that no civilians are in the target area. Although the directive does not apply to airstrikes in the open, NATO officials said it is McChrystal's intent for those standards to apply to all uses of air power, except when troops are in imminent danger.McChrystal's advisers allowed a Washington Post reporter to travel with a NATO fact-finding team and attend its otherwise closed-door meetings with German troops and Afghan officials. Portions of this account are based on those discussions.The incident has generated intense disquiet among Afghans, many of whom say military operations since the fall of the Taliban government in late 2001 have resulted in an unacceptably high number of civilian casualties. Local media reports have been filled with people alleging — some with little proof — that scores of civilians were killed in the airstrike.Aware that another mass civilian casualty incident could further diminish public support for the multinational mission to combat the Taliban, McChrystal sought to handle this case differently from his predecessors. The morning after the bombing, as Afghan television and radio stations began airing reports about it, he dispatched the team of senior officers to the area.His headquarters had only a six-line situation report from the Germans. The team's assignment was to figure out what had occurred and to help him communicate a forthright message to the Afghan public with the hope that owning up to a potential mistake quickly could help defuse tensions.Alarming briefings
When the seven team members arrived in the northern city of Kunduz on Friday afternoon, their first order of business was to head to the bombing site. It was just four miles south of the airport where they landed.But the German commander, Col. Georg Klein, urged them not to go. Residents were angry, he said, and German forces had been attacked a few hours earlier. "There's a likelihood we'll be shot at," he said.Klein also deemed a visit to the hospital to be too dangerous. Instead, the officers traveled to the nearby headquarters of the Kunduz province reconstruction team, home to about 1,000 German troops responsible for security and rebuilding operations in the area. There the team members settled into a small octagonal room for a series of briefings from Klein and his subordinates.Without a chance to talk to survivors, they would not be able to determine that day whether the German claims that no civilians were killed were accurate. The consequence was that NATO would have to continue issuing tentative statements promising a thorough investigation, while plenty of Afghans were taking to the airwaves to describe what they had seen.But the briefings proved to be more valuable — and alarming — than the team had expected.Klein told the team, led by British Air Commodore Paddy Teakle, the NATO mission's director of air operations, that he had asked a U.S. B-1B bomber flying over northern Afghanistan to search for two fuel trucks that had been hijacked Thursday evening. The bomber located the trucks, which by then were stuck on a small island in the middle of the Kunduz River, shortly after midnight Friday. The B-1 crew reported seeing rocket-propelled grenades and small arms among some of the people at the site, Klein said.After 10 minutes over the site, the bomber left to refuel. Klein summoned a new warplane, declaring the incident an imminent threat."My feeling was that if we let them get away with these tankers, they will prepare them to attack police stations or even the PRT," or provincial reconstruction team, he said.Twenty minutes later, two F-15E Strike Eagles arrived. A video camera pod beamed live images to Klein's command center. He and his troops could see the trucks -- and scores of people around them.His intelligence chief had spoken to an Afghan source who insisted that everyone at the site was an insurgent. The description of the scene the source provided was similar to what Klein was seeing beamed from the F-15."The whole story matched 100 percent," Klein said.But there was no way to tell whether the dots on the screen were insurgents, as the source maintained."We heard there was a tanker and everyone was going to collect free fuel, so I went with them," said Mohammed Shafiullah, the 10-year-old with the leg wound. He rode a donkey from his village and took in the scene from the western riverbank.He probably would not have been alive had the airstrike coordinator at Klein's command center not rejected the F-15 pilot's recommendation to use 2,000-pound bombs on the trucks, which would have created far wider devastation. Instead, the coordinator demanded that 500-pound GBU-38 bombs be used.Klein ordered the strike about 2:30 a.m. Two minutes later, the bombs had hit their targets.Inside the command center, the screen showed a huge mushroom cloud enveloping the island. A few black dots — survivors — could be seen scurrying away. But most of the 100 or so dots that had been on the screen were gone.To those on the riverbank, the island, which is about 30 yards wide and 150 yards long, appeared to be consumed by fire. Nearby residents ran to the scene to look for relatives and extricate survivors."Everyone was panicked," said Mirajuddin, the man who lost six cousins. "It was a horrible night."Instead of sending troops to the scene for an assessment of casualties — as McChrystal's directive requires — the Germans waited until morning to send an unmanned aircraft over the site to take photographs. The first German troops did not arrive at the scene until noon Friday. By then, all the bodies had been removed.Mirajuddin said he and his relatives found the bodies of only three of his cousins. He buried them that morning in the same grave, he said.On Friday night, though, his story, and those of others in the area, were unknown to the fact-finding team. The Germans were still insisting that only insurgents were targeted. Even so, members of the team came to believe that there almost certainly had been civilian casualties.In Kabul, McChrystal issued a taped message: "I take this possible loss of life or injury to innocent Afghans very seriously."Unexpected support
At midday Saturday, after visiting the hospital and flying over the bombing site in a helicopter, the team met with two local officials. The NATO officers were expecting anger and calls for compensation. What they received was a totally unanticipated sort of criticism."I don't agree with the rumor that there were a lot of civilian casualties," said one key local official, who said he did not want to be named because he fears Taliban retribution. "Who goes out at 2 in the morning for fuel? These were bad people, and this was a good operation."A few hours later, McChrystal arrived at the reconstruction team's base in Kunduz. A group of leaders from the area, including the chairman of the provincial council and the police chief, were there to meet him. So, too, were members of an investigative team dispatched by President Hamid Karzai.McChrystal began expressing sympathy "for anyone who has been hurt or killed."The council chairman, Ahmadullah Wardak, cut him off. He wanted to talk about the deteriorating security situation in Kunduz, where Taliban activity has increased significantly in recent months. NATO forces in the area, he told the fact-finding team before McChrystal arrived, need to be acting "more strongly" in the area.His concern is shared by some officials at the NATO mission headquarters, who contend that German troops in Kunduz have not been confronting the rise in Taliban activity with enough ground patrols and comprehensive counterinsurgency tactics."If we do three more operations like was done the other night, stability will come to Kunduz," Wardak told McChrystal. "If people do not want to live in peace and harmony, that's not our fault."McChrystal seemed to be caught off guard."We've been too nice to the thugs," Wardak continued.As McChrystal drove to the bombing site — defying German suggestions that the area was too dangerous — one senior NATO official noted that the lack of opposition from local officials, despite relatively clear evidence that some civilians were killed, could help to de-escalate tensions."We got real lucky here," the official said.But McChrystal still had a message to deliver. Even if the Afghan officials were not angry, he certainly did not seem pleased.After fording the muddy river to see the bombing site — getting his pants wet up to his knees — he addressed a small group of journalists at the reconstruction team headquarters and said it was "clear there were some civilians harmed at that site." He said NATO would fully investigate the incident."It's a serious event that's going to be a test of whether we are willing to be transparent and whether we are willing to show that we are going to protect the Afghan people," he said.More on: Afghanistan© 2009 The Washington Post CompanyURL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32711932/ns/world_news-washington_post/
True Sovereignty? The Akaka Bill and Its ImplicationsToday was a good day. Just yesterday, we celebrated our Queen's birthday, and today we honored her again. At the Law School today, on the panel to talk about the Akaka Bill and it's IMPLICATIONS...Lynette took on two heavy weights FOR the Akaka Bill and it was a knock out! She actually had Robin Danner falling over her words...and finding it hard to find herself in all her deceit. Ester Kia'aina...not too sure about her...think she has spent too long on the continent...by admission 21 years...and although a pretty hawaiian woman...sounded just like THEM.
Lynette deserves to be lifted above the crowds in how she spoke calmly, simply...and held the truth up high. Her "holding our ground" even brought tears to one of the three Kupu'aina Kids from the previous legislature. Wow. She basically said...people talk about the Akaka Bill as if because it is HERE...it is valid. She said that it erases our true history and makes a mockery of those ancestors before us who stood strong against the illegal overthrow, against the Illegal Annexation w/ the Ku'e petition, and the Illegal State of Hawaii and EVERYTHING ELSE after that. Ku'e Lc.
You done us proud. Mahalo piha for standing up for all of us, our Queen, and for every Kanaka Maoli who has every stood for what is Pono. EO..Ea!
aloha no,
DonnaI'm ecstatic over this especially when those buffoons employ the manifest doctrines on us. Mahalo a nui e Lynette for a job well-done!I just posted this on a response on Maoliworld relating to what these fools are trying to push on us by clarifying what manifest destiny is all about:Pope Urban II sent out his edict in 1095, Papal Bull Terra Nullius as land of no consequences, empty of human habitation belonging to no one. This meant that Christians were given the right of discovery and could claim land in non-Christianareas . The inhabitants were deemed subhuman and not civilized by their standards; thus had no nation to recognize as parallel to theirs.This is contrary to the existence of the Kingdom of Hawai'i which was recognized as a Christian natiion parallel and equal to that of the United States of America.In 1452, Pope Nicholas V sent out the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex, that stated these barbaric, non-Christians needed to be converted and civilized according to their standards. In essence, they could occupy the land but have no rights since it is God-given only to Christians. The natives on the land could be put in perpetual slavery; the monarchs convert them and use them as they wish; and make profit off of them, since they were considered property and their possession.Despite the fact that the Kingdom of Hawai'i did not fit this definition, the U.S consistently apply it to Hawai'i through racism because our nation was not a caucasian country and it was considered inconsequential since it was a small "feeble" country.In 1452, the Dum Diversas, issued by Pope Nicholas V , empowered King Alfonso V of Portugal to shackle any Muslims, pagans and any other unbelievers to perpetual slavery, which began with the slave trade in West Africa. Because Hawaiians were of dark complexion, they regarded us like the blacks and discounted the fact of us being a Christian nation.Pope Alexander VI issued Papal Bull Inter Caetera in 1493, the Doctrine of Conquest. This justified waging war on all non-Christians; a jure belli, a just war blessed by God, a jihad/crusade of which gave legitimacy of Christian domination over pagans, sanctifying enslavement, and dispossession of property. This they managed to do quite well in their dealings with Hawai'i and its people.Europe commonly accepted the right to discovery of countries unknown to all Christian people and no other "member"could interfere in their conquest of the globe. The USA and Europe asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves and acknowledged the rights of "natives" as occupants.This created a dilemma for the United States of America since relations were established with the British before the U.S. Americans. The U.S. began to vie for the favoring of the Hawaiian Kingdom over the British and disdained the influence of the British and their close relationship with Hawai'i. They figured they could sway us to voluntarily to choose the U.S.A. and annex ourselves to them of our free will.Their constant presence in Hawai'i is confirmation of that fact as they sent more of their citizens into Hawi'i to change our attitude of them while still maintaining their manifest destiny dogmas on us. This is why it took the U.S.A. over 60 years to validate their invasion and belligerent occupation. This was done over the constant opposition of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and its citizens.Tanewell look what I found about Danner...send out far and wideAwhile back, Keala Kelly told me about a connection between the North Slope
drilling, Alaska, the Danner sisters...and...the Akaka Bill. She told me she wrote a piece some years back, but I kinda forgot about it. Well, after listening to Robin Danner's slippery "gobbledegook" justification for all the lobbying and federal monies she receives...I thought I'd look into it. It is a 5 part article written showing the "connection" between Alaskan OIL and the Akaka Bill. Chillingly close to home. A must read. I will put up all five parts, which is a lot, but worth the read. Since we are all opposed to the Akaka Bill, do send this info out to family and friends.
mahalo,
Donna
-----------last paragraph of part 5Even beyond the uncertainties of Hawaiian political identity, Alaska's Native and corporate conflicts, and the strange bedfellows of a Hawaii State agency that is supposed to represent the Hawaiian people, there remain questions about power and political process. Is it ethical for the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement to use Alaska Native oil money to sell the Hawaiian community on the Akaka Bill, or for its CEO to receive payment from the oil industry and the State of Alaska for influencing Hawaiians and Senator Akaka on the issue of drilling in the Refuge? If Alaska's oil industry can reach into the Hawaiian community and make its will known, what other influence does it have in determining the future of Hawaiians?
-------------my comment-------------------
ONE question someone should have asked today of Robin Danner. "Are you getting paid by ANYONE to PUSH the Akaka Bill? Same question for Esther Kia'aina. I doubt anyone is paying Lynette to PUSH BACK...and say NO to the Akaka Bill.Donna
part one----------------------http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28213684.html
part two----------------------
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28213394.html
part three--------------------
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28213234.html
part four---------------------
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28212999.html
part five---------------------
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28212904.html
